Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cujobob t1_iviiapu wrote

Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in AP sources: Justice Dept. watchdog probing US Attorney Rachael Rollins by EgonEggnog

How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true? She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

You may like to assume that violations occur without evidence, but that’s not how the real world works.

If her meeting with Biden was signed off on, then it is possible her attending a function makes sense. That’s apparently what is being said in her defense. The article states this. Read the article.

17

and_dont_blink t1_ivikf4d wrote

>How can I ignore an issue that hasn’t been confirmed to be true?

I mean, you were willing to discuss one of the allegations, even though we don't know the specific circumstances yet? And we do know she was told to repay the Hollywood agency, per the article.

Yet you seemed to want to avoid the others by not mentioning them and making it only about that one, but not the having her trip paid for by a Hollywood agency or the usage of a personal phone for official business... Considering both the explanations were given by the same types of anonymous sources omitting the others seems a little sus?

> She’s being investigated… hence the title “probing US Attorney.”

We can agree there is nothing wrong with the Justice Department investigating the accusations of violating the Hatch Act?

−20

cujobob t1_ivjbz1t wrote

The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this. By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild compared to what those on the highest court and in other areas of the government are doing. You’re pushing a narrative. I literally stated I believed it should be looked into. Your bias is showing and that’s why you’re being downvoted.

8

and_dont_blink t1_ivjd3db wrote

>The weird part here is that you didn’t address the entire point I originally made regarding why people are confused by this.

I did, and people aren't that confused by it. You said a lot of things, and keep changing what you say they meant. First it was that she hadn't taken anything, then it was ignoring allegations that had no evidence (when it was really you were ignoring allegations she hadn't refuted).

>By today’s standards, even what’s accused, would be completely mild

By whose standards? Corruption and selective prosecution are both real issues, but handwaving whataboutisms doesn't make politics cleaner even if it's one of our own. Again, is your argument that her taking financial favors or violating the Hatch Act is mild and doesn't matter in this day and age? Do you know why we have them? Do you know why government agents are not supposed to be conducting business on personal equipment?

I do actually have a real issue with selective prosecution and "rules for thee but not for me", but handwaving away these things because it's our side does no one any favors, least of all our democracy, and completely cedes any moral high ground.

>You’re pushing a narrative.

Are you projecting a bit there cujobob?

Edit: Ohhhh noooo I've been blocked. Anyways...

−3

cujobob t1_ivjguax wrote

Misrepresenting my stance, eh? Go troll somewhere else.

5